I know it sounds all tin-foil-hat-y, but the prospect that CO2 policy could be used to keep richer nations dominant via IP has been haunting me for some time.
Well, yeah. Stupid, fraudulent spectacles like Copenhagen illustrate that fairly clearly.
The assumption behind the entire CO2 hysteria is that the rest of the world does not really deserve the comforts that we take for granted. So the assembled carbon racketeers are perfectly happy to forbid the most cost-effective technologies available to the developing world to improve the lives of their citizens. After all, we've got ours.
Hell, many of them would clearly prefer the surplus third-world population of to simply die off. But some people get all squeamish about that, so keeping them poor, sick, and dependent on the charity of the "international community" is the next best alternative.
The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are automatically doubting science.
People aren't doubting science, necessarily. They're just not as ready to accept everything a scientist claim is "science". Some scientists don't like this, preferring to think themselves above such elementary barriers of trust. That's too bad for them.
Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.
"The computers were configured to run 24/7 by school policy. A previous attempt to get them to run only from 6am to 6pm was met with "you're not allowed to do that" by the school board, even though it was explained that it would save $90k per annum in electricity."
I don't think we can say if this was a good decision or not without knowing the school board's reasoning.
Were there often people working outside of those standard hours? Did people need to remote in to their machines? Did they use the overnight window for automated patchloads or updates? Would allowing the machines to simply sleep have accomplished the same thing, but with a lot less effort?
"When will you yanks learn that just throwing guns at a problem always makes it worse not better."
You're so right. After all, guns did nothing to stop the Nazis. If the crews of the captured ships just sat down nicely with the duly elected pirate representatives and met their perfectly reasonable requests to kidnap you and take your ship and cargo then I'm sure any remaining survivors would walk away happy.
"When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry."
Yes, and before you know it all the pirates will have nuclear dreadnoughts and orbital particle cannons. Oh the humanity!
Or maybe they'd realize that getting shot and drowning at sea is a lot more likely than getting rich. And, being poor and unable to buy the latest Stark Industries weapons technology from the local Pirates R' Us, they'd find something better to do.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Either way, your suggested strategy of letting violent criminals do anything they want because stopping them might make them angry seems, well, unproductive.
"If not then they have a choice of crime or starve, and you're never going to make it "nasty dangerous" enough to put off the person who would starve to death otherwise."
Then I guess they'll die doing nasty dangerous things instead. And this way they won't have victimized innocent people.
Don't be so patronizing. There are lots of hungry and jobless people all over the world. Only a tiny fraction of them are pirates. Why do you feel that Somalians are so backwards as to be unable to improve their own lot in life without becoming parasites and criminals?
The problem has been that the international community has labored under a collective guilt complex about Africa. The worst kind of despots, kleptocrats, and zealots are recognized as leaders and the only consquences are suffered by the poor people who live under their boots. And international bodies like the UN are, as usual, content to tisk-tisk and feel good about themselves. Apparently they don't think dark skinned people are capable of doing any better.
Poor you. Last time I checked, the US was not part of the European Union.
And the EU is notorious for disregarding the will of its citizenry in favor of whatever is convenient or profitable for the bureaucracy. Or for the governments of the larger controlling countries. The whole EU constitution process is a good example: An elaborate sham that deliberately avoided all that pesky interference by those backwards, unenlightened voters.
That's often true. But private ineptitude tends to be a self-correcting problem. Businesses that are consistently unresponsive to the market and that do really stupid things will fail. And they should fail. Better businesses spend a great deal of effort to identify their mistakes so that they won't repeat them.
Public bureaucracies, OTOH, are essentially pure monopolies. They entrench themselves and always outlive whatever original purpose they had, they're given the power of law to enforce their decisions, and they have no reason to improve (or even care) because they have no competition. The aggregate incentives are all wrong.
And government owned corporations (like GM is turning into) and government granted monopolies (like cable companies) combine the worst of both worlds. Their real customer is not us, it's the government. We're just an expense. And better business have a much harder time competing against the advantages the favored companies are given.
You think I'm joking, but for the dollars invested per capita, Cuba has the greatest health care system in the world. Look it up.
Can you actually be stupid enough to believe that? Seriously?
The Cuban government makes up all the statistics, controls what's reported, limits access to foreign press, and routinely throws people into prison for speaking out of turn. If they said that the sky was blue you'd want to go outside and double check.
"The problem is, there are many doctors, and you can always find one that will disagree with the first one."
No, the problem is that patients do deliberately commit insurance fraud. And some doctors are perfectly willing to help. And some lawyers are willing to abet them. You've got to have a mechanism in place to detect and punish fraud, or you might as well go bankrupt handing out infinite amounts of free money to everyone who asks.
"If what you are suggesting is going to work, you would at least need some formalized appeals process, perhaps with government hired doctors from every medical field, that can review the cases from a neutral point of view."
Yes, because no one hired by a government would ever do anything dishonest. If you think government-run healthcare reduces fraud then you're very much mistaken.
You realize that Energy Star guidelines do not have the force of law, right?
"That California's regulations are mandatory, and not voluntary--like the Energy Star spec--appears to be the biggest distinction between the two, and appears to be the big sticking point for the industry. But California's mandate will reach much farther than the Golden State's borders."
But, as you said, there's no regulation to require reading the RTFA.
"The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth."
The inevitable collapse from overpopulation is always just around the corner. And we face dire consequences (this time for sure!) unless we immediately institute arbitrary and draconian measures to control even the most basic human actions.
Your premise is based on two incorrect assumptions:
- Available resources are in constant decline - Population always increases geometrically
Both are wrong. They've been wrong since Malthus proposed them. They've been shown to be wrong so many times that it's difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people keep repeating them uncritically as though they're unassailable facts.
Ok. But what sort of "innovation" has the artist been doing on a work from 40 years ago? Why should anyone, artist or publisher, be given exclusive rights to something they created so long ago? And why should their heirs have anything to do with it?
Arguably, the artist in this situation has been even less innovative than the publisher. If a publisher has kept a given work in print for, say, 30 years, then they've at least made the work available during that time, probably in multiple formats.
Copyright just lasts too darn long. And there's no reason why heirs should be included at all.
And Daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg county, Down by the Green River, where Paradise lay. "Well I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in askin'." "Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."
"Excuse me, but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid."
"Caring about our planet" doesn't make you smart, either. And there's ample evidence from history to show that people who substitute zealotry for serious thought usually end up causing more harm than good.
"Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a greedy asshole."
The original poster made some fairly specific points, all of which are arguably true. Sure, the "eyeline" thing is pretty subjective, but the fact that a certain prominent political family in Mass. has blocked local wind power for that same reason makes it hard to completely dismiss.
But you respond with an ad hominem argument: He's greedy! He doesn't care about the planet!
When solar and wind become profitable and efficient then everyone will use them. Until then they're luxury items.
Frankly we need more greedy people in the environmental movement. I want ultracapacitors to make someone as wealthy as Bill Gates. I want some anonymous engineer toiling at a startup company to invent artificial photosynthesis and never have to work again in his life. I want the Polywell fusion guys to make a breakthrough and be able to buy their own private islands.
When people get rich is when good things happen.
"And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid"
Yeah, because berating folks as "greedy assholes" is always the best way of showing respect for other people's priorities.
But if you do want to hear another person's priorities, then I think the answer is blindingly obvious: nuclear power. Unfortuantely the nitwits who have infested the environmental movement can't seem to get past their superstitious fear of it. Or maybe they don't really want cheap, affordable and safe energy so much as different kind of power entirely.
The administration has just demonstrated, yet again, that they are captive to powerful business interests, indifferent to free expression, hostile to honest debate, and completely hypocritical on transparency.
So, in your mind, the solution to this problem is to give them even more power and control over the most basic and fundamental aspects of our lives. So, while they may be incompetent lying bastards on copyright and free speech, the same people are completely trustworthy when it comes to health care. Or whatever other random thing you think everyone else isn't smart enough to handle for themselves.
Seriously, this is religious thinking with the government standing in for a deity. Heretics must be purged. If it's not paradise yet it's only because you have not invested sufficient faith and power in the man upstairs. Or maybe you've been corrupted by sinful, greedy thoughts of profit and forsaken the purity of your betters. But there's still hope! Send your money to the smiling fellow on TV and he'll intercede on your behalf. Remember our holy cause!
It's scary. It has all of the fanatic zeal and none of the pragmatic introspection that great religious thinkers have evolved over the centuries. And you don't even realize you're doing it.
No, we're evaluating how well this concept stacks up to one existing interface that's proven effective, fast, and reasonably intuitive. You know, the factors people really care about in an interface. As opposed to abstract and subjective concepts like "efficiency" and "neatness".
I don't know about most people, but I've never been frustrated by the fact that my computer doesn't require me to use all 20 fingers for input. I guess I don't really feel the need to be physically immersed in my windowing environment.
Wow, you really are around the bend. Apparently everything we say must be monitored by government watchdogs lest we offend / deceive / mislead some poor innocent naif who's too lazy, naive, or stupid to apply half-an-once of independent though before making a decision. But before you go this route, please consider the possibility that everyone else is not just like you.
Ok. So I review a camera that I really like, and mention that Bob's Photo has it in stock and is a great place to buy it.
It so happens that I have an affiliate link with Bob's Photo (among other retailers) and I get a referral fee. Is that an endorsement?
Oh, and the camera manufacturer sent me a free t-shirt. Allegedly for registering the product I bought, but clearly we know the truth, right?
Now suppose I tell the world that my mom's embroidered eyeglasses cases are the bee's knees and tell you how to order one. Them my mom invites me over for dinner. Paid endorsement?
Is a disclaimer required on her site? Because if so, then this is a win for the mega corporations. If I can't recommend my friend's service, then only massive corporations will get any advertising at all.
You'll find that government regulation is almost always a big win for mega-corporations. That's not by accident. They naturally want to price small operators out of the market. They can't do it by collusion or illegal trusts, so they convince do-gooders in the government (may of whom imagine themselves to be anti-corporate) to do it for them instead. The more vague and broadly reaching the better.
So then you have the CPSC going after home crafters, old books, and yard sales. And the Federal Trade Commission given the power to selectively destroy random people for engaging in what should be protected speech. But it's for our own protection, so it's ok.
Exactly. And even as it's now envisioned, the multinational committees will likely be stocked with the same luminaries of free speech that sit on the Security Council. And it'll go far beyond just making new domain names. After all, someone has to enforce who is allowed to which TLDs, right?
Frankly, I don't give a damn what China, Lybia or Iran think when it comes to running the Internet. And, if it comes to that, I don't want things like the German, French, or Canadian "hate speech" laws going international either. That sort of feel-good censorship can be even worse than the jackbooted variety, as the authorities choke off dissent while insisting it's all for our own good.
Honestly, I can't understand how any serious observer of world affairs, whatever you may personally think of the United States, can maintain that UN control is preferable to the current system. Not by any standard.
But due to stupidly trying to stick to the old form, the written form didn't change too, and English writing by and large stopped being phonetic. You're back to, basically, words being hieroglyphs that offer you no indication of how it's pronounced. It's using a phonetic alphabet, but phonetic it ain't any more.
I don't think the spelling of knight is a very good example. We have two very different words with entirely different meanings. "Night" is the time when it's dark outside. "Knight" is a guy with armor. "The black nite rode at nite" might be a bit easier to pronounce but it forces the reader to do more work to understand what you actually mean. And unlike encountering an unfamiliar word, if they don't understand the word "nite" in that context there's no way for them to puzzle it out or look it up. That does not seem like an improvement in readability or efficiency to me.
Real language isn't just about expediency. As you note in passing, it encapsulates centuries of culture and history, hidden but discoverable. You sacrifice all those shades of meaning and a tremendous amount of subtext when you insist on forcing words through a phonetic cookie cutter. It's stripping away all your metadata, and for no real gain.
FWIW, there have been many attempts to make a "rationalized" English language based on phonetics. Some were just for fun (anyone remember "Planetfall"?) and some were a life's work. None of them had any success in the real world. You should try and read some of them, and then tell us if they're an improvement.
I'm skeptical about that claim, too, but I think the author also intended it to include real-world activities. For example, you've called in sick to work, but records of your activity suggest that you were actually at a job interview / romantic liaison / midget convention over on the other side of town.
Seriously! Just imagine what would happen if there was a lunar nuclear explosion. The moon could be blown completely out of orbit! This would hurl the stranded crew into a nightmare existence of scientifically dubious plotlines, horrible dialog, and hostile alien lifeforms in terrifyingly inept costumes.
A total disaster. And that's just the first season.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it sounds all tin-foil-hat-y, but the prospect that CO2 policy could be used to keep richer nations dominant via IP has been haunting me for some time.
Well, yeah. Stupid, fraudulent spectacles like Copenhagen illustrate that fairly clearly.
The assumption behind the entire CO2 hysteria is that the rest of the world does not really deserve the comforts that we take for granted. So the assembled carbon racketeers are perfectly happy to forbid the most cost-effective technologies available to the developing world to improve the lives of their citizens. After all, we've got ours.
Hell, many of them would clearly prefer the surplus third-world population of to simply die off. But some people get all squeamish about that, so keeping them poor, sick, and dependent on the charity of the "international community" is the next best alternative.
The problem isn't that people aren't automatically believing science, it's almost the exact opposite: people are automatically doubting science.
People aren't doubting science, necessarily. They're just not as ready to accept everything a scientist claim is "science". Some scientists don't like this, preferring to think themselves above such elementary barriers of trust. That's too bad for them.
Doubt is good. Healthy skepticism is a sign of maturity and intellectual involvement.
"The computers were configured to run 24/7 by school policy. A previous attempt to get them to run only from 6am to 6pm was met with "you're not allowed to do that" by the school board, even though it was explained that it would save $90k per annum in electricity."
I don't think we can say if this was a good decision or not without knowing the school board's reasoning.
Were there often people working outside of those standard hours? Did people need to remote in to their machines? Did they use the overnight window for automated patchloads or updates? Would allowing the machines to simply sleep have accomplished the same thing, but with a lot less effort?
"When will you yanks learn that just throwing guns at a problem always makes it worse not better."
You're so right. After all, guns did nothing to stop the Nazis. If the crews of the captured ships just sat down nicely with the duly elected pirate representatives and met their perfectly reasonable requests to kidnap you and take your ship and cargo then I'm sure any remaining survivors would walk away happy.
"When you bring guns, they just bring bigger guns. And bombs and missiles. Just remember, pirates aren't going to give a crap about the same rules that limit what firepower a legal vessel can carry."
Yes, and before you know it all the pirates will have nuclear dreadnoughts and orbital particle cannons. Oh the humanity!
Or maybe they'd realize that getting shot and drowning at sea is a lot more likely than getting rich. And, being poor and unable to buy the latest Stark Industries weapons technology from the local Pirates R' Us, they'd find something better to do.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Either way, your suggested strategy of letting violent criminals do anything they want because stopping them might make them angry seems, well, unproductive.
"If not then they have a choice of crime or starve, and you're never going to make it "nasty dangerous" enough to put off the person who would starve to death otherwise."
Then I guess they'll die doing nasty dangerous things instead. And this way they won't have victimized innocent people.
Don't be so patronizing. There are lots of hungry and jobless people all over the world. Only a tiny fraction of them are pirates. Why do you feel that Somalians are so backwards as to be unable to improve their own lot in life without becoming parasites and criminals?
The problem has been that the international community has labored under a collective guilt complex about Africa. The worst kind of despots, kleptocrats, and zealots are recognized as leaders and the only consquences are suffered by the poor people who live under their boots. And international bodies like the UN are, as usual, content to tisk-tisk and feel good about themselves. Apparently they don't think dark skinned people are capable of doing any better.
Poor you. Last time I checked, the US was not part of the European Union.
And the EU is notorious for disregarding the will of its citizenry in favor of whatever is convenient or profitable for the bureaucracy. Or for the governments of the larger controlling countries. The whole EU constitution process is a good example: An elaborate sham that deliberately avoided all that pesky interference by those backwards, unenlightened voters.
That's often true. But private ineptitude tends to be a self-correcting problem. Businesses that are consistently unresponsive to the market and that do really stupid things will fail. And they should fail. Better businesses spend a great deal of effort to identify their mistakes so that they won't repeat them.
Public bureaucracies, OTOH, are essentially pure monopolies. They entrench themselves and always outlive whatever original purpose they had, they're given the power of law to enforce their decisions, and they have no reason to improve (or even care) because they have no competition. The aggregate incentives are all wrong.
And government owned corporations (like GM is turning into) and government granted monopolies (like cable companies) combine the worst of both worlds. Their real customer is not us, it's the government. We're just an expense. And better business have a much harder time competing against the advantages the favored companies are given.
You think I'm joking, but for the dollars invested per capita, Cuba has the greatest health care system in the world. Look it up.
Can you actually be stupid enough to believe that? Seriously?
The Cuban government makes up all the statistics, controls what's reported, limits access to foreign press, and routinely throws people into prison for speaking out of turn. If they said that the sky was blue you'd want to go outside and double check.
"The problem is, there are many doctors, and you can always find one that will disagree with the first one."
No, the problem is that patients do deliberately commit insurance fraud. And some doctors are perfectly willing to help. And some lawyers are willing to abet them. You've got to have a mechanism in place to detect and punish fraud, or you might as well go bankrupt handing out infinite amounts of free money to everyone who asks.
"If what you are suggesting is going to work, you would at least need some formalized appeals process, perhaps with government hired doctors from every medical field, that can review the cases from a neutral point of view."
Yes, because no one hired by a government would ever do anything dishonest. If you think government-run healthcare reduces fraud then you're very much mistaken.
You realize that Energy Star guidelines do not have the force of law, right?
"That California's regulations are mandatory, and not voluntary--like the Energy Star spec--appears to be the biggest distinction between the two, and appears to be the big sticking point for the industry. But California's mandate will reach much farther than the Golden State's borders."
But, as you said, there's no regulation to require reading the RTFA.
"The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth."
The inevitable collapse from overpopulation is always just around the corner. And we face dire consequences (this time for sure!) unless we immediately institute arbitrary and draconian measures to control even the most basic human actions.
Your premise is based on two incorrect assumptions:
- Available resources are in constant decline
- Population always increases geometrically
Both are wrong. They've been wrong since Malthus proposed them. They've been shown to be wrong so many times that it's difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people keep repeating them uncritically as though they're unassailable facts.
Ok. But what sort of "innovation" has the artist been doing on a work from 40 years ago? Why should anyone, artist or publisher, be given exclusive rights to something they created so long ago? And why should their heirs have anything to do with it?
Arguably, the artist in this situation has been even less innovative than the publisher. If a publisher has kept a given work in print for, say, 30 years, then they've at least made the work available during that time, probably in multiple formats.
Copyright just lasts too darn long. And there's no reason why heirs should be included at all.
And Daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg county,
Down by the Green River, where Paradise lay.
"Well I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in askin'."
"Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled it away."
"Excuse me, but caring about our planet does not make somebody stupid."
"Caring about our planet" doesn't make you smart, either. And there's ample evidence from history to show that people who substitute zealotry for serious thought usually end up causing more harm than good.
"Caring only about your pocketbook, however, does make you a greedy asshole."
The original poster made some fairly specific points, all of which are arguably true. Sure, the "eyeline" thing is pretty subjective, but the fact that a certain prominent political family in Mass. has blocked local wind power for that same reason makes it hard to completely dismiss.
But you respond with an ad hominem argument: He's greedy! He doesn't care about the planet!
When solar and wind become profitable and efficient then everyone will use them. Until then they're luxury items.
Frankly we need more greedy people in the environmental movement. I want ultracapacitors to make someone as wealthy as Bill Gates. I want some anonymous engineer toiling at a startup company to invent artificial photosynthesis and never have to work again in his life. I want the Polywell fusion guys to make a breakthrough and be able to buy their own private islands.
When people get rich is when good things happen.
"And thinking that eveyone must have the same order of priorities as you does make you stupid"
Yeah, because berating folks as "greedy assholes" is always the best way of showing respect for other people's priorities.
But if you do want to hear another person's priorities, then I think the answer is blindingly obvious: nuclear power. Unfortuantely the nitwits who have infested the environmental movement can't seem to get past their superstitious fear of it. Or maybe they don't really want cheap, affordable and safe energy so much as different kind of power entirely.
The administration has just demonstrated, yet again, that they are captive to powerful business interests, indifferent to free expression, hostile to honest debate, and completely hypocritical on transparency.
So, in your mind, the solution to this problem is to give them even more power and control over the most basic and fundamental aspects of our lives. So, while they may be incompetent lying bastards on copyright and free speech, the same people are completely trustworthy when it comes to health care. Or whatever other random thing you think everyone else isn't smart enough to handle for themselves.
Seriously, this is religious thinking with the government standing in for a deity. Heretics must be purged. If it's not paradise yet it's only because you have not invested sufficient faith and power in the man upstairs. Or maybe you've been corrupted by sinful, greedy thoughts of profit and forsaken the purity of your betters. But there's still hope! Send your money to the smiling fellow on TV and he'll intercede on your behalf. Remember our holy cause!
It's scary. It has all of the fanatic zeal and none of the pragmatic introspection that great religious thinkers have evolved over the centuries. And you don't even realize you're doing it.
No, we're evaluating how well this concept stacks up to one existing interface that's proven effective, fast, and reasonably intuitive. You know, the factors people really care about in an interface. As opposed to abstract and subjective concepts like "efficiency" and "neatness".
I don't know about most people, but I've never been frustrated by the fact that my computer doesn't require me to use all 20 fingers for input. I guess I don't really feel the need to be physically immersed in my windowing environment.
Wow, you really are around the bend. Apparently everything we say must be monitored by government watchdogs lest we offend / deceive / mislead some poor innocent naif who's too lazy, naive, or stupid to apply half-an-once of independent though before making a decision. But before you go this route, please consider the possibility that everyone else is not just like you.
Ok. So I review a camera that I really like, and mention that Bob's Photo has it in stock and is a great place to buy it.
It so happens that I have an affiliate link with Bob's Photo (among other retailers) and I get a referral fee. Is that an endorsement?
Oh, and the camera manufacturer sent me a free t-shirt. Allegedly for registering the product I bought, but clearly we know the truth, right?
Now suppose I tell the world that my mom's embroidered eyeglasses cases are the bee's knees and tell you how to order one. Them my mom invites me over for dinner. Paid endorsement?
Yeah, you're right. It's all so simple.
Is a disclaimer required on her site? Because if so, then this is a win for the mega corporations. If I can't recommend my friend's service, then only massive corporations will get any advertising at all.
You'll find that government regulation is almost always a big win for mega-corporations. That's not by accident. They naturally want to price small operators out of the market. They can't do it by collusion or illegal trusts, so they convince do-gooders in the government (may of whom imagine themselves to be anti-corporate) to do it for them instead. The more vague and broadly reaching the better.
So then you have the CPSC going after home crafters, old books, and yard sales. And the Federal Trade Commission given the power to selectively destroy random people for engaging in what should be protected speech. But it's for our own protection, so it's ok.
But you can probably still use your phone while it's charging, if necessary.
And you're probably not sharing your phone with someone else who might need to take it with them overnight.
Just what I was going to say.
Exactly. And even as it's now envisioned, the multinational committees will likely be stocked with the same luminaries of free speech that sit on the Security Council. And it'll go far beyond just making new domain names. After all, someone has to enforce who is allowed to which TLDs, right?
Frankly, I don't give a damn what China, Lybia or Iran think when it comes to running the Internet. And, if it comes to that, I don't want things like the German, French, or Canadian "hate speech" laws going international either. That sort of feel-good censorship can be even worse than the jackbooted variety, as the authorities choke off dissent while insisting it's all for our own good.
Honestly, I can't understand how any serious observer of world affairs, whatever you may personally think of the United States, can maintain that UN control is preferable to the current system. Not by any standard.
But due to stupidly trying to stick to the old form, the written form didn't change too, and English writing by and large stopped being phonetic. You're back to, basically, words being hieroglyphs that offer you no indication of how it's pronounced. It's using a phonetic alphabet, but phonetic it ain't any more.
I don't think the spelling of knight is a very good example. We have two very different words with entirely different meanings. "Night" is the time when it's dark outside. "Knight" is a guy with armor. "The black nite rode at nite" might be a bit easier to pronounce but it forces the reader to do more work to understand what you actually mean. And unlike encountering an unfamiliar word, if they don't understand the word "nite" in that context there's no way for them to puzzle it out or look it up. That does not seem like an improvement in readability or efficiency to me.
Real language isn't just about expediency. As you note in passing, it encapsulates centuries of culture and history, hidden but discoverable. You sacrifice all those shades of meaning and a tremendous amount of subtext when you insist on forcing words through a phonetic cookie cutter. It's stripping away all your metadata, and for no real gain.
FWIW, there have been many attempts to make a "rationalized" English language based on phonetics. Some were just for fun (anyone remember "Planetfall"?) and some were a life's work. None of them had any success in the real world. You should try and read some of them, and then tell us if they're an improvement.
I'm skeptical about that claim, too, but I think the author also intended it to include real-world activities. For example, you've called in sick to work, but records of your activity suggest that you were actually at a job interview / romantic liaison / midget convention over on the other side of town.
Seriously! Just imagine what would happen if there was a lunar nuclear explosion. The moon could be blown completely out of orbit! This would hurl the stranded crew into a nightmare existence of scientifically dubious plotlines, horrible dialog, and hostile alien lifeforms in terrifyingly inept costumes.
A total disaster. And that's just the first season.